Trump rape case: Even a former president is not above the law, court told

Donald Trump should be held accountable for sexually attacking an advice columnist in 1996 because even a former president is not above the law, a lawyer for the columnist told a jury on Monday in closing arguments in the lawsuit that accuses Trump of rape.
A lawyer for Trump responded by calling the accuserâs account âunbelievableâ and âoutrageousâ.
Once the final arguments were complete, the judge sent the jury home with instructions to return on Tuesday to hear about an hour of instructions before beginning deliberations.
Jurors will be asked to decide whether Mr Trump committed battery and defamed writer E Jean Carroll and whether damages should be awarded.

In recapping Carrollâs case, attorney Roberta Kaplan showed jurors video clips of Trump from his October deposition and replayed the Access Hollywood video from 2005 in which Trump said into a hot mic that celebrities can grab womenâs genitals without asking.
Ms Kaplan recalled Trumpâs comment that âstars like him can get away with sexually assaulting womenâ.
âThatâs who Donald Trump is. That is how he thinks. And thatâs what he does,â Ms Kaplan said. âHe thinks he can get away with it here.â
Ms Kaplan used Trumpâs words to support Carrollâs claims that Trump raped her in early spring 1996 in the dressing room of Bergdorf Goodman, a luxury department store in Manhattan across the street from Trump Tower.

Trumpâs attorney, Joe Tacopina, attacked the allegations as absurd, saying they were an âaffront to justiceâ and minimised âreal rape victimsâ.
He agreed with Ms Kaplan that no one is above the law, but he warned that âno oneâs below itâ either.
Mr Tacopina told jurors they will not have to âlet her profit to the tune of millions of dollarsâ because they will see that it is impossible to believe the âunbelievableâ.
âThis is an absolutely outrageous case,â he said, arguing that Ms Carroll sued to raise her status and for political reasons.

He said even Ms Carroll had testified that it was an âastonishing coincidenceâ that a Law and Order offshoot aired an episode in 2012 in which a woman is raped in the dressing room of a Bergdorf Goodman.
âWhat is the likelihood of that?â Mr Tacopina asked. âOne in 20 billion? One in 10 billion?â
Tacopina said the claims were too absurd to call his client as a witness, noting that Carroll expected jurors to believe Trump would risk everything to attack a woman in a busy department store even though she could not remember exactly when the assault happened.
âWhat could I have asked Donald Trump? Where were you on some unknown date, 27 or 28 years ago?â he said.
In a rebuttal argument, Ms Carrollâs attorney, Mike Ferrara, mocked Trumpâs decision to skip the trial, saying jurors could use his absence to conclude that Trump committed the attack because Trump ânever looked you in the eye and denied itâ.
Mr Kaplan told jurors that it wasnât a âhe said, she saidâ case but rather one in which jurors should weigh what 11 witnesses, including Ms Carroll, said versus what they heard from Trump in his video deposition.
âHe didnât even bother to show up here in person,â Ms Kaplan said, referring to Trumpâs absence from the proceedings in federal court.
She told jurors that much of what he said in his deposition and in public statements âactually supports our side of the case.â
âIn a very real sense, Donald Trump is a witness against himself,â she said. âHe knows what he did. He knows that he sexually assaulted E Jean Carroll.â
Trump has insisted in public statements and in the deposition that Ms Carroll made up the claims to boost sales of a 2019 memoir. He has called Ms Carroll âmentally sickâ and a âdisgraceâ.
Carroll, 79, who is seeking unspecified compensatory and punitive damages, testified for more than two days. Ms Kaplan praised her testimony as âcredibleâ.
âIt was consistent, and it was powerful,â the lawyer said.
Trumpâs public comments are the basis of Ms Carrollâs defamation claim. Ms Kaplan labelled the comments as lies and said they ruined her clientâs reputation and forced an end to her 27-year employment as an Elle magazine advance columnist.
Ms Kaplan urged jurors to find in favour of âmy brave client, E Jean Carroll,â but she put no number on the damages being sought.
âConsider the evidence and pick a number you think is right,â she said. âThis lawsuit is not about the money. This lawsuit is about getting her name back.â
- If you are affected by any of the issues raised in this article, please click here for a list of support services.